Posted on 07/30/2004 8:17:31 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
I am filling out a survey about gun ownership and have been asked about a .50 cal BMG rifle.
Could you please explain to me what this is and what it's used for?
Thank you
Yes. Laws against shouting "fire" in a theater, slander, amd libel are laws which violate the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Yes, because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them.
That's true for current case law, as I understand it. But wasn't Justice Thomas saying that case law had it wrong by suggesting there is a personal RKBA?
These are two completely separate issues you're conflating - how the right is defined by the Constitution, and who's restricted by it from violating that right.
Do you think the proper reading of the Constitution means that the individual RKBA shall not be infringed by state and local governments, as well as federal?
Not at all, because as I pointed out, there are two separate issues:
Issue #1: How the right is defined by the Constitution.
Issue #2: Who is prohibited by the Constitution from violating it.
Thomas was commenting on Issue #1. He had nothing to say in regard to Issue #2.
Do you think the proper reading of the Constitution means that the individual RKBA shall not be infringed by state and local governments, as well as federal?
No, the amendment applies to the federal government alone. There's ample evidence that that was the intent.
In the second amendment.
Read your own quote --"Justice Thomas speculated that "[i]f . . . the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' ..."
The second amendment doesn't apply to state law whatever it means; personal right, collective right, militia right, whatever.
Justice Clarence Thomas may do more than just speculate. He may vote to turn current case law on its head.
Did you hear that he does not believe in stare decisis?
I'm not disbelieving you, but do you have a cite for that? (just for my own reference)
Wouldn't that be the definition of judicial activism? Should USSC Justices engage in judicial activism?
bumpkin
double bumpkin
No. Judicial activism means misrepresenting the Constitution, not defying precedent.
1500 yard target shooting. Also effective against any large predator.
"If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right," says Scalia. "I wouldn't do that."
And that "precedent" was based on what? It was based on a previous intepretation of the Constitution.
Defying precedent, therefore, is defying a previous interpretation. Now, if that previous interpretation were "wrong", then isn't judicial activism actually correcting the wrong, resulting in a true (or truer) representation of the Constitution?
The bottom line? Yes, it is judicial activism. But Ken H would say that it's good judicial activism because our guy is the one doing it.
Ken H wrote:
If the RKBA is indeed a personal right as he suggests, can a State infringe that right without violating the Second Amendment?
______________________________________
Yes, because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them.
These are two completely separate issues you're conflating -
- how the right is defined by the Constitution, --
-- and who's restricted by it from violating that right.
580 inquest
_____________________________________
Round we go again..
Our fundamental personal rights to life liberty or property cannot be 'defined' away by judicial or legislative fiat. [See the 14th on due process]
Nor can the rights of the people be infringed upon by the powers delegated to governments, fed or state. [See the 9th & 10th Amendments]
--- Really guys, this 'states rights' position you hold is getting ludicrous.
That question contradicts itself, given how I just defined "judicial activism".
One who misrepresents the Constitution is said not to be a "strict constructionist", not a judicial activist.
(Strictly speaking, a judicial activist is a judge that overturns legislation. I used the term loosely.)
Not at all, because as I pointed out, there are two separate issues:
Issue #1: How the right is defined by the Constitution.
Issue #2: Who is prohibited by the Constitution from violating it.
Thomas was commenting on Issue #1. He had nothing to say in regard to Issue #2.
Justice Thomas: "[P]erhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to keep and bear arms 'has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."'
Here is Justice Story's quote: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;"
If Justice Thomas considers the RKBA the key liberty of a republic, then why would he think that the States could violate it and still remain republics? It is his job to guarantee that States have republican governments.
You're assuming that everyone knows the "true meaning" of some disputed part of the Constitution. Those that know the true meaning yet go against it are enganging in judicial activism. Those that want to stay with the meaning are strict constuctionists.
I say it's not that black and white. I say that there are people (and judges) who believe the true meaning of some part of the Constitution is totally opposite of what you and I believe. Who, then, is the activist? Who, then, is the strict constructionist?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.